'Do Your Homework Before Entering The UFO Fray'

"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science. This requires a change in attitude primarily on the part of scientists and administrators in universities."Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University:

Stanford Professor of Astrophysics Dr Peter A. Sturrock is a pretty well established and well respected scientist in the UFO field and has been involved with some great research over the years with his colleague Dr.Jacques Vallee and billionaire philanthropist Laurance Rockefeller - he also conducted some great work exposing the Condo Report and revealed the 'huge disconnecton' between Dr Condon’s conclusions and the actual reports of the scientists who conducted the research (also how many of his final summaries were 'variously misleading, false or inaccurate').
In response to a debunking article published in APS Physics News, he provides some good advice in the letter below and presents six recommendations to physicists invited to take part in a discussion about the UFO phenomenon - perhaps the first one is the most relevant.

'Do Your Homework Before Entering UFO Fray'

The August/September 2002 issue of APS NEWS contains an interesting article by Lawrence Krauss that deals, in part, with his experience in participating in a debate on the problem posed by so-called UFO sightings. Since I have studied this problem for 30 years, I can perhaps offer supplementary advice coming from a different perspective.
Here are my recommendations to physicists invited to take part in such a discussion:

1. Either stay away completely or do your homework first. This is a very complex subject, and "doing your homework" will not be quick, easy or painless.

2. Do not imagine that training in physics provides you with any relevant credentials that enable you to pontificate on the problem. Expertise in forensic science would be another matter.

3. Read the Condon report from cover to cover preferably from back to front so that you can better judge the extent to which Condon's conclusions and recommendations follow from the work of his staff. (E.U. Condon, D.S. Gillmor, Scientific Study of UFOs, Bantam Books, 1969)

4. Learn something about the history of the subject. An excellent summary of the early days of the controversy can be found in The UFO Controversy in America by D.M. Jacobs (Indiana University Press, 1975).

5. You might also wish to learn what a nongovernmental scientific review panel had to say about the subject by perusing my own book, The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence (Warner Books, 1999).

6. Finally, bear in mind that although most scientists treat this subject as a joke, the public does not, and we would do well to treat their concerns with respect.

There are also two relevant statements below made by Dr Sturrock where he brings up the subject of deeply embedded prejudice within the mainstream scientific community and the fact that many scientists have 'never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon' - he also calls for the subject to be subjected to open and extensive scientific study.

"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data." Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987

"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science.
In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon.” Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University (Survey of American Astronomical Society)

Click to expand...

Don't know how many folks agree with Dr Sturrock but there's also a few statements and links in this thread

explaining how the statistical conclusions of the Condon report should 'arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue UFO study' - there's also plenty of reasons to be highly skeptical of official unexplained report percentages and serious questions raised about the objectivity and active agenda of government sponsored investigations into the UFO subject.

Hi Karl,...'Do Your Homework Before Entering The UFO Fray' ...
good thread mate and great advice from a true giant of open minded scientific investigation of UFO's.... but advice that is seldom [if ever] heeded. His surveys among the scientific [astronomical] and aeronautical communities proved the stigma of confessing belief or even interest in the phenomenon to be too unbearable for the vast majority of the scientifically employed brethren to admit to. ... which in turn encourages the uneducated sneering and general distain toward a subject that they purposely keep their distance from, through perceived necessity via peer pressure.
... And even now almost fifty years later, his advice is still avoided by the majority of the scientific community.
His words ... 'Do Your Homework Before Entering The UFO Fray' ...written on the top of this thread actually remind me of an interview with one of our old friends ... Michael Swords [The Professor] that he gave in 1995 to CUFON titled "State of UFOlogy today" .... The CUFON Interview of Michael D. Swords, Ph.D (September 1995)

This isn't easy. Aristotle told Alexander the Great that "there was no Royal [easy] road to Mathematics". The same is true for UFOs.
A. Decide to be an honest seeker-of-the-truth rather than an emotionally driven questor for concepts which "feel profoundly meaningful" to one's personal hopes and desires.
B. Read the few scholarly books available which present the history & most incisive, rational thinking in the field; and keep up with the most scholarly journal literature.
C. Find, if possible, one of the few scholars, & learn & help & make a personal effort to actually contribute something rather than just talk.
D. Don't expect an abduction under each bed, nor a true UFO hiding in every black helicopter.
E. If something serious, like CUFOS or BAE, still exists, make a commitment to joining its circle actively.
F. Try to resist the temptation that you have found the final answer, & that no one else makes any sense.

Click to expand...

...... And I think that this sagely advice should be heeded by all honest open minded students whether scientifically educated or not.

Appreciate the replies and couldn't agree more - think it's fair to say that probably one of the most important scientists ever to investigate the UFO subject was atmospherical physicist Dr James E McDonald and there's a new (and very interesting) vid below about him from Richard Dolan:

"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic. One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge. (I wish it did, sigh.) Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science. Do your homework!"

Dr. Bernard Haisch - Director for the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics